Curtis just got off the phone with BRAD BLOG'S Brad Friedman, broadcasting live in the Election Meltdown-apalooza. Curtis says he "apparently lost 57-43%" based on MSNBC results with 90% of the vote in --- but notes that there were "oddities" --- for example in some districts there were more Republican votes than there are registered Republicans. Of course, some Dems or independents could have voted for Feeney, but statistically, that is highly unlikely.

Curtis says "We have a lot of feet we'll be putting on the ground," and he will now do a "forensic reconstruction" to find out "if the actual election is supported by actual voters." Imagine that!

Note that there are STILL no numbers being reported from Seminole County per the FL Sec. State website (as of 12:06 PM EST).

In short, Curtis is not conceding. We say BRAVO! If he lost fair and square, that's fine, we will all accept that. It's the "fair and square" part we are just a bit uncertain of. Who was it who once said "Trust Yet Verify"? Why, it was Ronald Reagan. Wise man occasionally, it turns out. Stay tuned for more news from FL-24. It's likely this story may continue for awhile. And that, friends, is a good thing.

Go Curtis!! Go and get a recount.
Maybe the Democrats won control, but there was still a lot of voting problems. We need every democratic leader to stand up and demand an investigation into voting irregularities.
Curtis, you are a hero. Thank you for not giving up yet. Get a recount!!

Here's a correction to a post I made on the election night open thread... I've corrected the math and the conclusions... I'm brain dead, and I'm going to sleep now... See you in 08'.

Here's what I can tell you about Clint Curtis' race. I was at a Country Club homeowners association/polling place in Volusia County at 7:00AM. I was there straight from open til' close today running an informal exit poll (which is the only kind you can run when the pollsters must be 100 feet away from the door…) This is the largest polling place in Volusia County, with over 3300 registered voters. It encompasses a huge subdivision around a golf course, with a lot of really nice real estate. This precinct is not your average Volusia County neighborhood, as the entire County runs less than half Red, but this precinct has 60% Republican residents. Throughout the day I ran around the parking lot, telling people that I was running an exit poll, and asking if they would answer one question for me, and asking about the congressional race between Clint Curtis and Tom Feeney. Those that answered Clint Curtis, I informed about the votenow2006 website, and I got a bunch of people to sign up for it through me, and many more said they would… Late in the day after the rain started pouring, and at a point where I was unable to get people to respond to my question as they were running for their cars, I added up the numbers I had. On the first count at around 4:30, my exit poll had 210 for Feeney, and 196 for Clint. By the close of the polls, my numbers were 215 Feeney to 206 Clint. (The numbers didn't change much over the last three hours because the entire time it was pouring rain, which reduced people's propensity to respond, and to some degree our attempts to run after them…) Having been there all day I estimated that I probably had responses from about a third of the people.

The results came in as 760 for Feeney and 585 for Clint, which equals 1345 votes - of 1386 voters total. It also means that we got 35.2% of the Clint Curtis voters to respond to the exit poll, while only 28.2% of Feeney's voters. This leaves 924 people who voted in the Curtis-Feeney race who did not repond to my poll question. In order for the numbers to come out how they did, Feeney must have had 545 of them, while Clint only had 379. Meaning that Feeney carried this group by a margin of 59% to 41%. Assuming further a conservative estimate of half of those 924 non-responding voters which never were asked my question(meaning they should be figured as approximately at equal percentages as the official count) we can figure 462 votes at 56.5% Feeney and 43.5% Curtis. Thus I deducted that the voting percentage of those people I surveyed, and further refused to respond to my question must have favored Feeney at the percentage of 63% to 37%. Though this seems low to me intuitively, it's not outside the realm of mathamatical possibility.

Before I left the afterparty, I spoke with Clint. He's received word from other people about things which seem to be somewhat suspicious. I can tell you that you won't be hearing his concession speech anytime soon. These things are going to take some time to work out, but Clint assured me he's going to be on the case. The networks may call this one, but it's far from over. Clint Curtis being elected is e-voting's worst nightmare, and thus his victory probably isn't going to come without a fight. I told him to count me in.

The exit poll still says Feeney won, regardless of statistics. If somebody can come up with proof Feeney hired somebody else after learning from Curtis how simple it is to hack the machines, that changes the picture, but if he's busted the seat still stays red.

Thank you all for your support. I have already notified the SOE’s office in all four counties and informed them that we are considering a challenge. As most of you are aware a recount will show nothing since a fixed election will only show fixed results. In Florida, it is illegal to actually recount the paper ballots used in scanners and the touch screens only report what they are programmed to report.

In this election the results did not match the Zogby pre-election poll, our internal VoteNow2006.net polling, nor our external polling. The external poll was conducted at over a dozen polling places on election day.

Our plans are to find official precincts where the totals look odd and then personally contact the voters in that precinct. We can then provide voters associated to votes. This will either confirm the official results or show any discrepancies. There are several other candidates in Florida that have already contacted me and are considering doing the same thing.

Thanks for the update Clint:) keep us posted as much as possible on this election result and verification process! You ran a hell of a campaign against a man so weak in principals and poltical stances that he would not even debate you face to face.....that is nothing short of a backhanded slap to all of his constituents to not be willing to talk issues in a forum of public debate...he knows his game wouldn't work in a debate against you...you are too common sense and straight-forward for him to handle

I'm very interested in seeing these exit polls when they come out. I can't beleive ANY of these races across the country were this close. Even if nothing comes of Clint's HUGE effort, it will be proof enough for those of us that know what's really going on.

Thanks a million Mr. Curtis, you are an example for all candidates, Republican, and Democrat and will surely pioneer a template for any future election fraud studies.

Canvassing for votes in Clint Curtis territory is very rewarding, I have found. I have totally funny anecdotes to share (Clint's advance letter to these voters was most helpful to prep people that someone would be visiting them):

One couple in their seventies invited me into their living room to sign the affidavit. The gentleman says: "I will be most happy to stand in a courtroom and SWEAR that I have never voted for Tom Feeney in my entire life."

Another couple was busy in their Saturday routine. The man was very grateful that I was out canvassing for votes. He begged me to hang around a minute, as his wife was in the shower, and she wanted to sign too. In a minute, he brought out her signed affidavit. But he begged further, could I hang out another moment because his wife wanted to talk to me, and she had to throw some clothes on.

Another couple (very informed) invited me inside their home. He told that he was one of the oldest families in the Sons of the American Revolution, both a local and national chapter. He said that in 2000, after GWB was selected via the Supremes ala Feeney in the State House with his choice of the Republican electoral rep, that Feeney was a guest speaker at the local chapter of Sons/Amer Rev. He said that Feeney talked about how his choice was rather "the flip of a coin." That evening, his local chapter gave Feeney a medal. He said that this medal had not been discussed and voted on within his chapter. Opportunity was afforded to ask Feeney questions. Our friend asked Feeney what he thought about the Supremes getting involved in a State's Rights issue in 2000. Feeney blathered off the pat, standard, fluffy answer. Our friend replied, "Sounds like a better course than 'flipping a coin!'" He then resigned from both the national and local chapters that his father and his grandfather were proud to have been a part. Another patriot standing his ground. He told me that he blogs at scrappleface.com . I have not visited there yet.